Letters, March 29: Gay marriage a matter of human rights

March 29, 2013

Updated Aug. 21, 2013 1:17 p.m.

1 of 1

Kevin Coyne of Washington holds flags in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the second day of gay marriage cases, turned Wednesday to a constitutional challenge to the federal law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) CAROLYN KASTER, AP

Kevin Coyne of Washington holds flags in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the second day of gay marriage cases, turned Wednesday to a constitutional challenge to the federal law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) CAROLYN KASTER, AP

Kevin Coyne of Washington holds flags in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 27, 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the second day of gay marriage cases, turned Wednesday to a constitutional challenge to the federal law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples. (Carolyn Kaster, Associated Press)

This is not a state question nor should it even be a federal question in 2013. At the heart of the same-sex marriage question is a more basic question, one of Human Rights. In the United States of America, "all men are created equal." This basic wording has been challenged, most notably the question of whether anyone with black skin could be considered a man or, more specifically, a human being. That question of what constitutes a "human being" was settled as a matter of the federal government, not state governments. So should the question of same-sex individuals be considered solely a matter of federal rights that are already in place?

If we work from the premise that "all men are created equal" and that this is a federally mandated tenant, then we can extrapolate that gay men and women are recognized as, well, as human beings. From that we can, as reasonable and reasoning people, extrapolate that these individuals' rights are already protected under federal law and, so, have the same inalienable rights as every other human being in this country and that those may not be taken away by any state.

Is this debate truly more complicated than that? The Supreme Court cannot rule on any matter of law based on their personal preferences or religious beliefs. They are strictly in place to consider matters of law. If it is federally legal for a heterosexual human being or the newborn Christians down the block or the mixed-race couple across the street to be married, then it should federally legal for gay human beings to marry. This is only, solely, a question of human rights.

Individual religions may, again under federal rights, draw their own lines in the sand on this subject as they wish. What cannot be done is to turn religiously based biases into law of any sort, state or federal. What is legal for one human being is legal for all human beings under federal law. That is the only question that the Supreme Court has to answer. Everything else falls in order behind it.

___________

DANA POINT, Milt Rouse: People who say that marriage has always been defined as being only between a man and a woman do not understand the concept of language. The English language is plastic, meaning that it evolves with the changing times.

Words that used to mean one thing now mean something entirely different. The word "virtual" used to mean actually concrete and real. Today that word has evolved to take on meaning indicating something that is computer generated. The same can be said of the word "gay," which has evolved from the original meaning into something relevant to the times. So, too, with the definition of the word "marriage." It is presently changing to include equality for all.

___________

COSTA MESA, Thomas M. Le Grande: Once again the U.S. Supreme Court seems more interested in making law than in looking at existing law. The issue they should be examining regarding Proposition 8 in California is whether or not a federal appeals court has a right to accept and rule on a state initiative that applies only to that State and does not contradict existing Federal law. The Constitution specifically limits the power of the federal government and leaves other matters to the states and the people.

___________

LAGUNA NIGUEL, Robert J. Cmelak: Listening on the radio to the Supreme Court's oral arguments for Proposition 8 and the commentators' comments made it appear that the Supreme Court makes its decisions based solely on such oral arguments. But to get a hearing on the court a well-thought-out brief has to be filed beforehand. Justice Clarence Thomas does not participate in oral arguments. He does his homework first and is often chosen to write the majority opinion.

___________

COSTA MESA, Don Hull: The gay marriage issue is all about taxes. Gays want the same tax deductions for getting married. And they are right. Equality under the law means that all marriages should be treated the same.

To solve the gay marriage issue, abolish the income tax. No person or institution has a moral right to rob anyone of his honestly acquired wealth. Expunge the income tax and we'll get back most of the liberties that have been confiscated from us since 1913.

Plea bargain parlay

HAWTHORNE, Barry Levy: We are told that the death penalty isn't a deterrent, yet James Holmes, the theater killer, wants to plead guilty to spare his life and go to jail until he dies there ["Guilty plea offered in theater shootings," News, March 28].

So if the death penalty isn't a deterrent, why the talk of a plea bargain? It seems that criminals don't think they will get caught. They don't not think they will get the death penalty, yet when confronted with the facts that they are going to be convicted and executed, they want to plea bargain. Seems faced with the actuality of being put to death they look to deter that.

Maybe this means we need more death penalties carried out, in a shorter time, and send a very strong message to killers that you will be caught and your life will be forfeited.

Leave fire-pits alone

IRVINE, William Lewis: The Air Quality Management District weighing in on the Newport Beach/ Huntington Beach city council efforts to remove fire rings on the beach is a shot in the dark ["Fire-ring ban could spread," Front Page, March 26].

Why would the AQMD get involved in a community dispute that has overt social and political motives" This is a not-in-my-backyard issue to somehow privatize the beachfront headed by an elite bloc of residents to preserve and enrich their domain. The AQMD is out of gas, so to speak and needs to extend its authority and interference into other areas. What's next, barbecues, campground campfires outlawed? They need a makeover and go after the real polluters.

Our California coastline and beaches are to be enjoyed by all, residents, nonresidents, tourists and others who visit. All with that experience have wonderful memories. A day at the beach is a one of a kind memory and lives forever. Do not deny nor impair their access and ability to commune with nature, family and friends.

Brazen North Korea

LAKE FOREST, Rick Birle: The regime in North Korea has brazenly continued to test nuclear weapons and the means with which to deliver them, has publicly stated that its nuclear weapons are all aimed at targets in the U.S. and South Korea, and, by its own account, is actively preparing for an imminent attack on our nation and South Korea. Our government dismisses all of this bellicose activity with a shrug and the diplomatic equivalent of saying, "They're just a bunch of wild and crazy guys, and they don't really mean it."

Arguably, with its nuclear capable warheads, North Korea currently poses a greater threat to the U.S. than any other country on Earth. It's time to send a clear and strong message about the potentially devastating consequences of acting out its military fantasies.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.